Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30949441›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2019

Deep neural networks outperform human expert's capacity in characterizing bioleaching bacterial biofilm composition.

Antoine Buetti-Dinh, Vanni Galli, Sören Bellenberg, Olga Ilie, Malte Herold, Stephan Christel, Mariia Boretska, Igor V Pivkin, Paul Wilmes, Wolfgang Sand and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Does Machine Understanding Require Consciousness?Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Antoine Buetti-DinhInstitute of Computational Science, Faculty of Informatics, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.
Vanni GalliInstitute for Information Systems and Networking, University of Applied Sciences of Southern Switzerland, Manno, Switzerland.
Sören BellenbergFakultät für Chemie, Biofilm Centre, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Olga IlieInstitute of Computational Science, Faculty of Informatics, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.
Malte HeroldLuxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine, University of Luxembourg, Belvaux, Luxembourg.
Stephan ChristelCentre for Ecology and Evolution in Microbial Model Systems, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.
Mariia BoretskaFakultät für Chemie, Biofilm Centre, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Igor V PivkinInstitute of Computational Science, Faculty of Informatics, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland.
Paul WilmesLuxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine, University of Luxembourg, Belvaux, Luxembourg.
Wolfgang SandFakultät für Chemie, Biofilm Centre, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Mario VeraInstitute for Biological and Medical Engineering. Schools of Engineering, Medicine & Biological Sciences, Department of Hydraulic & Environmental Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Mark DopsonCentre for Ecology and Evolution in Microbial Model Systems, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeep neural networks have been successfully applied to diverse fields of computer vision. However, they only outperform human capacities in a few cases.

methodsThe ability of deep neural networks

resultsA low number of microscopy images per category (<600) was sufficient for highly efficient computational analysis of the biofilm's bacterial composition. The use of deep neural networks reached an accuracy of classification of ∼90% compared to ∼50% for human experts.

conclusionsDeep neural networks outperform human experts' capacity in characterizing bacterial biofilm composition involved in the degradation of chalcopyrite. This approach provides an alternative to standard, time-consuming biochemical methods.

Indexed as

AcidophilesBacterial biofilmBiominingConvolutional neural networksDeep learningMicroscopy imaging

Identifiers

PMID30949441
PMCPMC6430008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.